|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
From: "Arthur Entlich" <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Jerry Olson wrote: > > > Art, if the polaroid lens is not as sharp as the canon, that would be > > the reason the main subject, the brick wall wasn't as sharp as the canon > > lens in the canon scanner. THe image was a brick wall cross lit by the > > sun, a VERY sharp situation for showing what a good lens can do. > > > > > Jerry, > > A poor lens would also show poor grain resolution. Is the brick wall in > a different location than the sky (like the sky is at the top and the > brick wall at the bottom of a vertical image?) If this were so, perhaps > the film carrier was angled in some manner and focus was varied by this. > Did you try reversing the film orientation and seeing it that had any > effect? > > I really don't know what else to say. If your results were typical, > everyone would be running out to buy Canon FS2710 units at less than > half the price of these 4000 dpi scanners. > > I can't directly compare the FS 2710 with the SS4000+, BUT, I am in > correspondence with someone who has both the FS-2710 and the Minolta > Dual II. And I have the Minolta Dual II and the SS4000+. > > The person who has the Canon and the Minolta has sent me samples. The > Canon has considerably nosier shadows (with green noise) than the > Minolta. The Minolta is also sharper, but it suffers from grain (and > other spots) aliasing (it is both actually sharper and it is > perceptually much sharper due to the aliasing - in fact you might like > it) ;-) The Minolta with the slow exposure in Vuescan really cleans up > the shadows. As of the last time I heard, this feature is less > effective with the Canon. > > Now, I have the Minolta Dual II and the SS4000+, as I stated, and the > SS4000+ blows the Minolta out of the water for both "real" sharpness and > for shadow detail. It is also faster to use, and I prefer the software > to the Minolta. Having not used the Canon's software, I can't comment > on it. > > We are going to have to agree to disagree in this matter, because we > each have our own experiences. I would ultimately be interested if you > are able to find a scanner sharper than the Canon FS-2710, using your > criterion. > > Art I think Kennedy has it - most likely Jerry's seeing magnification effects. Jerry - upsample the Canon scan to 4000 dpi and see if it's still sharper. Dave - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.